ISIL making headline again

[Stoo82]

Saddam was a very bad man, did some terrible things akin to genocide... but even he was preferable to ISIS (and the death toll of Iraqi's has increased massively since his demise) - he had only a matter of years left, we should have left Iraq alone as we had been for the previous decades during his most major atrocities. He would have likely died by now, but instead the Iraqi's are now living in hell.

As for Gaddafi, he ruled with an iron fist, but he wasn't genocidal... oppressive perhaps, but he still is and will always be immensely popular in Libya (except with the Jihadists). One million Libyans rallied in his support in Tripoli weeks before he was captured and killed. Picture below:

Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg rallies?

 

[somerset]

I said "fairly stable" not "stable" and am talking at the time just before the illegall war, when Saddam was already on his knees before we went in, not the whole 100 year history of the Middle East. If we are going to go back to the 50's, 60's and 70's we should also include Cuba, Vietnam and out own Nothern Ireland problem. Maybe we should go back to the slaughter of the naitive American Indians. I don't understand why you are trying to paint such a perfect picture of us, and then say that going to war illegally was justified.

And like I said earlier Iraq was fighting Americas war on Iran and supplying Saddam with arms and chemical weapons.

I am not talking 100 years, dullard, it was a hotbed of fundamental upheaval right through and including the millennium, it was a whole raft if unstable sub conflicts, some a proxy legacy of the cold war era, most just the usual factional, tribal and downright criminal....... but the fact is, it was as unstable as now, its just that in the last 20 years news 24 and internet use, give us this wall to wall view of each and every moment......simple really, when you think about it.

PS: a million dead in a middle east war, can hardly be called stability ( even fairly), however hard you try to mitigate it with the usual 'blame the west' rhetoric.

 

[beorhthelm]

Have you ever heard of the Nuremberg rallies?

amazing isnt it? all those oppressive, genocidal leaders just wanted the best, where really just misunderstood by the portion of the population that they oppressed and killed.

 

[symyjym]

I am not talking 100 years, dullard, it was a hotbed of fundamental upheaval right through and including the millennium, it was a whole raft if unstable sub conflicts, some a proxy legacy of the cold war era, most just the usual factional, tribal and downright criminal....... but the fact is, it was as unstable as now, its just that in the last 20 years news 24 and internet use, give us this wall to wall view of each and every moment......simple really, when you think about it.

PS: a million dead in a middle east war, can hardly be called stability ( even fairly), however hard you try to mitigate it with the usual 'blame the west' rhetoric.

Yep I can see that you think about it simply. I am just adding the grey to your black and white minded view. Which million dead are you talking about? The Iran Iraq war 30 years ago? If you are I have already explained to you earlier that we supplied Saddam with arms and chemical weapons. Stick your head in the sand if it makes it easier for you.

I am not blaming the west for all the troubles in the world, I just understand the part it plays. You will be telling me that Vietnam was justified next

 

[Bold Seagull]

this old nonsence is, well nonsence. it wasnt predictable, any more than it was predictable Saddam's forces would melt away. the events of Iraq were largely unforseen - possibilities amongst many and the allies certainly overlooked what to do in the event of a complete collapse. they had assumed that some other group would establish themselves, or misguidedly, there would be an outbreak of understanding and belief in liberal democracy. there was always risk, just as there was a risk Saddam held out and the conflict desended into a long drawn out war (rather than anarchic insurgency). to suggest the train of events were accuratly forseen implies they were considered part of the plan, and that makes no sence if we consider the original anti-war narrative, that it was all for the oil. it didnt serve the US and allies much to have a country in a state of anarchy, so that the oil remain largely unaccessible and even now the production remains well below potential ouput. now if we want to discount oil and say it was for the shear hell of it, unfinished business from Gulf War, one might argue it was part of the plan to leave an unstable state behind.

the whole of the past decade in the middle east has been largely unpredictable. most big events are, otherwise people will act to avoid them.

Well, it has made me smile someone telling me I'm talking nonsense by spelling nonsense wrong. So well done for that.

Of course it was predictable. It doesn't mean it was the only predictable outcome, but it was certainly one of several predictable outcomes that many observers, commentators and experts made at the time before the allies invaded. The Allies would have made hundreds of predictive models and strategies for what would happen. Your other point about the 'original' anti-war narrative - it was just one of many, like there being more than one prediction of what would happen afterwards. There was so much anti-war opinion you certainly cannot confine into a single soundbite about oil - that would be just nonsense.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Good to see Egypt gunning for ISIS.the more the better

 

[beorhthelm]

Well, it has made me smile someone telling me I'm talking nonsense by spelling nonsense wrong. So well done for that.

Of course it was predictable. It doesn't mean it was the only predictable outcome, but it was certainly one of several predictable outcomes that many observers, commentators and experts made at the time before the allies invaded. ...

i'm glad i could help, its one of those words you know that alwasys catches me out. to the predicatablity, the way you put it implied it was of high certainty. i dont say it wasnt predictable, just that it was a low probablity. i dont recall at the time many saying that entire Iraq military would desert (they did predict the regular forces might but that the republican guard would stand firm), Saddam would run, the government would collapse, and following a brief period, the country would desend into sectarian violence that would make NI look like a 80's football clash. there were a few that said it would unleash hell or some such hyperbole, but not in a clear, documented outline of the future events. it wasnt predictable, because the conditions that lead to the anarchy where themselves not realistically predictable with high certainty. i honestly think if it had been predicted, with a more than 50/50 chance, the planning would have accounted for it and they'd have done alot more to avoid those scenarios. unless they didnt care, which as i say doesnt make any sense either, because why they did they go in the first place? they wanted a nice compliant client state, not what they got.

 

[somerset]

I am not blaming the west for all the troubles in the world, .....

Yes you are..........are you actually unable to understand your own ramblings?

PS: everybody supplies arms to everybody at one time or another, .... your beloved Russian and Chinese comrades aren't shy when it comes to weapons sales,........ Very few of these nations or terrorists groups use M16's or SA-80's do they?

Yep I can see that you think about it simply. I am just adding the grey to your black and white minded view. Which million dead are you talking about? The Iran Iraq war 30 years ago? If you are I have already explained to you earlier that we supplied Saddam with arms and chemical weapons. Stick your head in the sand if it makes it easier for you.

I am not blaming the west for all the troubles in the world, I just understand the part it plays. You will be telling me that Vietnam was justified next

 

[symyjym]

Yes you are..........are you actually unable to understand your own ramblings?

PS: everybody supplies arms to everybody at one time or another, .... your beloved Russian and Chinese comrades aren't shy when it comes to weapons sales,........ Very few of these nations or terrorists groups use M16's or SA-80's do they?

Gibberish

i'm glad i could help, its one of those words you know that alwasys catches me out. to the predicatablity, the way you put it implied it was of high certainty. i dont say it wasnt predictable, just that it was a low probablity. i dont recall at the time many saying that entire Iraq military would desert (they did predict the regular forces might but that the republican guard would stand firm), Saddam would run, the government would collapse, and following a brief period, the country would desend into sectarian violence that would make NI look like a 80's football clash. there were a few that said it would unleash hell or some such hyperbole, but not in a clear, documented outline of the future events. it wasnt predictable, because the conditions that lead to the anarchy where themselves not realistically predictable with high certainty. i honestly think if it had been predicted, with a more than 50/50 chance, the planning would have accounted for it and they'd have done alot more to avoid those scenarios. unless they didnt care, which as i say doesnt make any sense either, because why they did they go in the first place? they wanted a nice compliant client state, not what they got.

Even more gibberish

 

[Bold Seagull]

i'm glad i could help, its one of those words you know that alwasys catches me out. to the predicatablity, the way you put it implied it was of high certainty. i dont say it wasnt predictable, just that it was a low probablity. i dont recall at the time many saying that entire Iraq military would desert (they did predict the regular forces might but that the republican guard would stand firm), Saddam would run, the government would collapse, and following a brief period, the country would desend into sectarian violence that would make NI look like a 80's football clash. there were a few that said it would unleash hell or some such hyperbole, but not in a clear, documented outline of the future events. it wasnt predictable, because the conditions that lead to the anarchy where themselves not realistically predictable with high certainty. i honestly think if it had been predicted, with a more than 50/50 chance, the planning would have accounted for it and they'd have done alot more to avoid those scenarios. unless they didnt care, which as i say doesnt make any sense either, because why they did they go in the first place? they wanted a nice compliant client state, not what they got.

Well, you've got an interesting opinion on it all there, but there was a reason the US didn't go into Iraq in 1991, or make good on their promise to back Kurdish uprisings against Saddam at that time to depose him in that they knew Iraq would descend into chaos and they'd end up governing the place for decades. Dick Cheney said as much in 1992.

But in his 1992 remarks in Seattle, Cheney foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to insurrection and guerrilla attacks.

I don't know what plans they had, but they knew the various political and religious factions could send the country into chaos into 1991 and they will have known that was a significant possibility when going in in 2003. I will clarify that I'm not saying the specifics of ISIS were predictable, but certainly the civil unrest, chaos and ungovernability of large parts of the country was.

 

[clungemeister]

top binfest fellas.....one of the best to date , i have to go to the shops now , i have run out of pringles , tim tams , cheese and onion crisps and beer.....do carry on though , the juxtopositions are simply captivating , captivating i tell ye...!